EMOTIVA Thread Q&A [TECHNICAL TALK ONLY] - Page 3

Didn't mean any disrespect, should have said based off the Sunffire TG platform. My point though is that there is a world of difference between Emotiva designing a pre-pro with all the latest bells & whistles from scratch, vs. starting with a proven platform and modifying it.

Unless one of them is broken or incredibly badly designed* it certainly is voodoo.

*I've seen a few from conrad johnson, in particular, that left the factory with fairly massive channel imbalances and no means to correct them, for example, and that certainly impacts spatial characteristics.

Absolutely not. The one with room correction will probably sound better. Perhaps even much better.


Some of us (such as me) are perfectly happy running low five figures worth of speakers on cheap commodity amps. I use a Panasonic XR55, for example, which cost less than half as much as the Velodyne SMS-1 I use to EQ my sub. And about twice as much as the remote I use to control my system. I can certainly understand spending more for better appearance, ergonomics, or (perceived) build quality, but sonically amps are just commodities today. You can get transparent sound from a cheap chip (47 Labs made a fortune because of that, and even Rowland has used the same kinds of chip amps found in car audio head units in multithousand dollar amps) and you can get transparent sound from a megabuck Halcro or whatever, and everything in between.


There is no detail lost, except in the heads of the gullible.


No, it'll change the frequency response/time alignment/phase, and will sound different from a "better" model, whereas with the room circuit disengaged (assuming both systems are operating within its limits) it will sound exactly the same.

Well I suppose soundstage (size, etc.) is generally more of a speaker issue.

However, I'm under the impression things like imaging (placement in the soundstage) could be effected by a pre/pro or amp ... without it being broken.


The science for detailing how our brain interprets sound is not completely fleshed out ... however, it is understood that subtle cues in stuff like the attack, decay, etc. is how we are able to determine the relative position of sounds versus our current location and direction.

These cues can be quite small, and it is something that can easily be corrupted by anything mucking up the signal. To assume all pre/pros and amps are perfect passthroughs of the original signal is a bit optimistic IMO.



An example of using these cues are the processors that try to simulate surround sound from 2 speakers. They mess with the phase, etc. to try to generate the proper cues to 'trick' our brains into thinking the sound came from another direction.

If you expand the definition of "broken" to include amps designed to have nonflat frequency response and high distortion, your impression is wrong.



Despite what marketers would have one believe, the science on amps is indeed pretty clear cut. The variables in play today are cost and efficiency, not sound quality.


The word for that is "EQ," and it can be applied to any amp.

Of course, processors that do something to the signal (beyond just decoding it according to common, licensed algorithms) can and frequently do sound different. Nobody's claiming that variances in frequency response, time delays, perhaps phase sometimes, and so on are not audible. But no digital source, amp, or preamp, unless broken or incompetently designed, affects any of those parameters to an audible degree.

Wow. You techs sure sound like you know what you're talking about. However I've auditioned a cheap Denon with room correction and a very expensive Lexicon receiver without the eq thing both driving the same Dynaudio speakers and the Lexicon sounded far superior to these untrained ears. Just my 2 cents worth.

Audioholics has just reviewed the Emotiva Ultralites.

I placed an order for the Emotiva Ultra theater system last night.

Currently my setup is 5.1 and the power and abilities of this system are perfect for my needs... not to mention cost a fortune less than competitive systems according to every single reviewer and comment I've read.

I'm really stocked about installing and running this unit through its paces.

I also ordered a Pioneer 1016 just to play with and see which I prefer, but everything so far is leading me to believe that there will be no contest and frankly, I've wanted separates for years but haven't been able to justify the cost.

michael

Wonder if Audioholics will place this system in one of their recommendation setups? ($5k system for instance).

michael

I'm waiting until they come out with their second generation LMC/LPA-2 (?) this summer/fall. I'm sure they'll have onboard hdmi 1.3 switching and new surround sound decoders.

The thing is the Panny XR55 is not just an amp for analog sources.
There is a A to D conversion, then of course the D to A conversion.
I only have 4 figures worth of speakers (Ascend).
With them,The LMC-1 and LPA-1 are sonically superior to the Panny
with respect to 5.1 inputs.

I also placed an order last night for the LMC-1 to get the free shipping. This will be my first step into using separates.

Emotiva just extended the free shipping until May 31!

Is anyone using the LMC-1 with the Toshiba HDA1 HD dvd player? Since the LMC-1 doesn't support audio via HDMI, I would be using the 5.1 analog out from the HDA1 into the analog in of the LMC-1. I've got a 7.1 speaker setup and wanted to know if there is a recommended way to get sound out of my rear speakers. I was told that a Y cable out from the HDA1 side surrounds into the side and rear surround inputs of the LMC-1 would do the trick but wanted to get some views from others.

DS-21,

Give it up. If you can't hear the difference between a 300 dollar all in one receiver and a respectable audio setup on a "low five figure" set of speakers, then you have no place arguing your point about room correction. Especially considering the fact that your Panasonic doesn't even have room correction system we have been discussing. Your Velodyne room correction is something totally different. When you try to eq mid to high frequencies, there are tradeoffs for every adjustment you make. Our ears are designed to hear mid to hi frequencies better, which is why you can eq a sub to no end with few repercussions. You can even put a cruddy, high distortion amp in a sub and it will make very little difference, which is what is in the majority of consumer subs available.

Most of the room correction in basic receivers does more harm than good to the sound wave, especially if it is a parametric eq. You can't correct a massive spike in frequency response due to the room problem and expect everything around that to be perfectly normal. The Pioneer models, which are some of the highest regarded, use a graphic equalizer as a base for the processing to avoid this.

[quote=DS-21]
Despite what marketers would have one believe, the science on amps is indeed pretty clear cut. The variables in play today are cost and efficiency, not sound quality.

No the variables in your amp are cost and efficiency. Panasonic did not design your $300 dollar receiver to be competitive with world class amps. You are a victim of your own "gullibleness." We are happy that you are content with your amp, but you aren't going to convince many here that there aren't any differences. You can head back to that thread, if that's the route you are going with this discussion.

After reading about the Ultra Theater, it's got me thinking about selling my current receiver and giving Emotiva a try. So has anyone had a chance to compare any of the following Emotiva setups? What differences did people find they liked between the intro and higher models?

Emotiva Ultra Theater Series LMC-1 & LPA-1

Reference Theater Series MMC-1/IPS-1

Professional Theater Series DMC-1/MPS-1

I would be very interested to hear comments on what people think about the LMC-1/LPA-1 vs a mid end receiver, with no amp. Receivers in the 1-2k range. From what I understand the Emotiva Ultra Theater Series doesn't upconvert most signals, and has no passthrough to HDMI either.

Read the Audioholics review, and am VERY interested in possibly picking this one up instead of the Denon 987 I was almost set on getting, if I found no new units that I liked by the time I was ready to start my HT (some of the new receivers in the 1-2k range shown at CES were tempting).

Just set up a LPA-1 and that thing is back breaking heavy. Driving some Magnepan speakers.

Why? What pray tell does being able to hear measurable differences in frequency response, time alignment and so on have to do with not being able to hear differences that don't exist?


Ah, but the Pioneer Elite EX-500 on my other low-five-figure set of speakers (see my profile for details) does.

But I do things differently from most people. For instance, I modified the crossovers in my main speakers specifically for their placement in my living room. (Call it "passive room correction," if you wish.) I use speakers that are properly designed for constant directivity through the mid-tweet cross, rather than those idiot-boxes most hi-fi salons sell that have a tweeter blithely flush-mounted on the baffle and accordingly have awful power response characteristics in the upper mids.


A smart consumer is no more likely to buy a sub off the shelf than he is to buy suits that weren't cut and tailored especially for him.


Excuse me, but what the hell do you think the crossovers inside your speakers are? If they are competently designed, they provide passive frequency division and passively EQ the frequency response of your speakers. Parametric active EQ and parametric passive EQ are no different sonically, allowing for the loss of efficiency in the latter option.


Actually, a graphic EQ is just a parametric EQ with constant Q. In other words, Pioneer goes that route because it takes less processing power. If you understood anything about the science of audio rather than inanely blathering on about nonexistent sonic differences, you would know that...


Not intentionally, I agree. They could care less. (And to be sure, if I were running speakers with nasty impedance curves, it wouldn't be competitive.) But amps are commodities now. I've put up the XR55 (and the Pioneer EX-500) up against my previous setup (Marantz AV600 pre/Adcom amps) and more expensive setups, too. Amazingly enough, when levels are properly matched not even people who claim to hear differences in wires can tell the difference between the Panny and Classe or Linn equipment.


I'm sorry that you have such a low regard for the intelligence of your fellow travelers.

Seriously though, why do so many pre's, pro's, and receivers still have all those s-video/composite connections? Does anyone really still connect their stuff that way???

Lots of equipment still uses composite and/or s-video. Video game consoles for one. Also those who own a lot of VHS or laserdisc stuff will need them. What about front A/V jacks for laptops/camcorders/iPod?

Another thing to consider is that some people like to have a separate TV monitor setup that is more convenient for tweaking than turning on the main projector/RPTV/plasma/etc. If your main component/HDMI connections are going out to the main display device it's handy to have that secondary display switching capability running with composite or s-video.

Some questions:

1. How was this test done (methodology is rather important) ?
2. Who were the participants ?
3. What were the other, morse expensive set ups ?

DS-21,

I used to work for Pioneer. I have worked with product engineers and the like, have done many a/b comparisons with our equipment/competitors, and know for a fact that our old EX-500 doesn't hold a candle to the other amps or room correction systems in the line much less anything outside the line. The designed room correction and amplifier in that product was one of the most basic and intended for Home Theater In a Box use. Since your speakers are smaller and you have larger subs in the system, it becomes less necessary to have larger amounts of power, but the rest of the circuitry design was for a relatively low fidelity system.

I'm not listed as an industry insider, because I'm not there anymore.

I really don't have time to respond to all of your rants about personal audio theories. Frankly, this is just a hobby now for myself and just like you I am out for the most bang for the buck. The tinkering you have done with your products, especially speakers I cannot speak to.

I also have a great deal of understanding how the room eqs are implemented in pretty much all receivers that are out there. I won't comment on any trade secrets, but I assure you that Pioneer didn't implement a graphic eq due to "processing power." If you want more information on this, pick up a piece of product literature, I will not expand further.

While many of your theories are partially right, they don't get implemented in receivers like what you are attempting to do with your speakers. Also, playing with speakers to get proper time alignment, phase, and frequency response is something totally different than trying to correct a problem that already occurs in the system. When you tell people that a "properly implemented eq" will sound better than a more expensive system, that is completely theoretical and in no way shape or form true because you are basing it on theory and not how the product works in the real world.

Furthermore, you can't really argue with people about your equipment, since you have modified them extensively and are not the same products anymore. So while what you are doing has alot of technical merit, it is outside of the range of 90% of the people on this forum and is not a standardized process like products that are commercially available. Also, if you make the wrong corrections you can easily turn out to have a product that was less accurate than what you began with.

And I do have alot of respect for the "fellow travelers" on this forum. Many are very insightful and even have gone on to produce their own products. I am a big DIYer when it comes to projectors and screens.

Since this argument is basically going no where and we aren't even discussing the Emotiva equipment, I would ask you to PM me if you want to continue.

DS-21 .... Still waiting on the specifics of your blind, level matched tests of receivers vs. pre-amp/power amp combos using a panel of people who claim to be able to hear the difference in wires.

This would be a test which required a lot of work. Surely you can detail for us how this test was done.

And on a lighter note...

I just ordered an MPS1. Looking forward to evaluating the difference with my Rocket 760's and Ref 1's. Still don't know how I'll fit the RSC 200 and 4 TSS surrounds into the equation with the elevation in amplification but that's half the fun anyway, isn't it? Altough they do have stereo modules.....

Tcr ... It is a great amp, looking forward to reading about your results.

Thanks for the feedback.
I'm thinking of using the 'stereo mod's for the surrounds and therefore dispersement.

I've had the LMC-1/LPA-1 combo for about 2 months and while the LMC-1 has some operational quirks that can be a PITA, overall it's the best VALUE in audio I've EVER come across.

I replaced a Pioneer Elite VSX 56TXI with this combo and even the WIFE finds the quality of the sound amazing. And that's saying something for her.

The best setup in regards to sound quality I've ever had was an Aragon 2007 amp with a Proceed AVP2 processor using the same speakers I have now in the exact same location and I must say that this little $899 Emotiva setup is 98% of that.

It may be 100% of that since hearing memory is rather short lived. The Pioneer it replaced isn't even close and I believe the main reason is the "headroom" provided by the amp and I can honestly say that "TO MY EARS" and everyone that has heard the current system notice how the stings etc... of music seem to hang around a bit longer and the sound is much less muddled with great separation.

I'm not saying my mind isn't playing tricks on me, but I can honestly say that this combo is without reservation the best $899 I have EVER spent.

Classes in run on sentences are free of course